[escepticos] los limites del debate cientifico

[Carlos Ungil]

Hola, hola.

El Oct 21, 2007, a las 11:10 PM, jmbello escribió:
> Pues por lo que se ve el debate es bastante transparente.

Si es que me quejo de vicio, el funcionamiento de la cosa es  
inmejorable (como ha atestiguado el colistero que formó parte del  
invento). Las conclusiones del IPCC se basan en estudios  
irreproducibles cuando no están completamente infundadas, y el  
consenso es unánime porque los expertos abochornados con el  
funcionamiento de la cosa se van.

Se desvinculó también del IPCC Paul Reiter, experto en enfermedades  
tropicales y profesor del Instituto Pasteur. Un informe sobre el  
funcionamiento del IPCC que presentó a un comite del parlamento  
británico es muy entretenido (iba a decir clarificador, pero no hay  
que creer a los disidentes).

[ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/ 
12/12we21.htm ] Extraigo algunas perlas:
   In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by  
relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject,  
and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not  
based on sound science.

   IPCC SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP II. CHAPTER 18. HUMAN  
POPULATION HEALTH
   The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge  
of the 22 authors.

   In summary, the treatment of this issue by the IPCC was ill- 
informed, biased, and scientifically unacceptable.

   These confident pronouncements, untrammelled by details of the  
complexity of the subject and the limitations of these models, were  
widely quoted as "the consensus of 1,500 of the world's top  
scientists" (occasionally the number quoted was 2,500). This clearly  
did not apply to the chapter on human health, yet at the time, eight  
out of nine major web sites that I checked placed these diseases at  
the top of the list of adverse impacts of climate change, quoting the  
IPCC.

   IPCC THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP II. CHAPTER 18. HUMAN  
POPULATION HEALTH

   The third assessment report listed more than 65 lead authors, only  
one of which—a colleague of mine—was an established authority on  
vector-borne disease. I was invited to serve a contributory author on  
the health chapter

   My resignation was accepted, but in a first draft I found that my  
name was still listed. I requested its removal, but was told it would  
remain because "I had contributed". It was only after strong  
insistence that I succeeded in having it removed.




   IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP II. CHAPTER 18. HUMAN  
POPULATION HEALTH

   It will be interesting to see how the health chapter of the fourth  
report is written. [esto fue escrito en 2005] Only one of the lead  
authors has ever been a lead author, and neither has ever published  
on mosquito-borne disease. Only one of the contributing authors has  
an extensive bibliography in the field of human health. He is a  
specialist in industrial health, and all his publications are in  
Russian. Several of the others have never published any articles at all.

   I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been  
selected: "It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top  
scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead  
authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the  
first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only  
authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead  
authors" with experience, representative of the world's top  
scientists and specialists in human health?"

[ FIN DE LA CITA ]

Asi que los chorrocientos mil expertos no lo son tanto. Supongo que  
es inocente pensar que el IPCC debería regirse por criterios  
puramente cientificos (veo por otra respuesta posterior que entiendes  
que es un ente político además de científico, no eres tan inocente  
como yo).

Chau,

Carlitos

PS: Hablando de huracanes, resulta curioso que sean (Katrina en  
particular) la imagen mas frecuentemente asociada con la verdad  
inconveniente del Sr Gore teniendo en cuenta que es uno de los  
argumentos menos sólidos (aunque es mejor que los que son  
directamente falsos, claro). En palabras de uno de los redactores de  
capítulo sobre ciclones tropicales del último informe del IPCC "We  
concluded that the question of whether there was a greenhouse-cyclone  
link was pretty much a toss of a coin at the present state of the  
science, with just a slight leaning towards the likelihood of such a  
link".